You are hereForums / Issues / Other Issues / Citizens United vs. FEC: Supreme Court Ruling invalidates most Campaign Finance Reform
Citizens United vs. FEC: Supreme Court Ruling invalidates most Campaign Finance Reform
Okay, we all know about it. Post your thoughts here.
For me, this is a win for Free Speech. I don't really get the "corporate personhood" angle, here. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law [... or of,] abridging the freedom of speech or of the press". It doesn't say anything about this being an individual right and not a collective right. It doesn't say "except for corporations or unions" or "except for groups who have more effective means of getting their message across".
I mean, it's pretty plain on the face of it that corporations are not "persons" before the eyes of the law, although they do have some rights and responsibilities of "persons". That's the point. Now, would we deny corporations the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances"? Or the right to "peaceably assemble"? Those are generally individual rights.
What about the right to be secure in their "houses, papers, and effects"? Do governments have the right to search and/or demand papers and effects from corporations without a warrant? Does the Constitution guarantee that right to corporations or is it only by statute which can be easily replaced?
Can corporations be subject to excessive fines?
I mean, sure, corporations and unions are not natural persons, and they do not share all of the rights and privileges and immunities of natural persons, but that doesn't mean that they have no rights either. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of our system of government, of our way of life, it is the very bedrock foundation of our values for many of us.
Oh, and I don't know how to edit, but:
The other thing is that the context and history of Free Speech and Free Press are explicitly about political and religious speech, not necessarily about commercial speech. I certainly support the government's right and responsibility to police commercial speech, but not political speech.
And with regards to the public air waves, which are a public right of way, some restrictions can be placed there as well. On the use of the air waves to spread a message, not on the use of other media to disseminate it. So the Internet and print media and satellite and cable communications are fair game.
I mean, sure, corporations and unions are not natural persons,
That's the problem. They are not in any way that I can reason a living person. They are a legal construct designed to limit individual loss and to ensure profit generation.
As they are not a person, I don't see how the first amendment (or any amendment) can apply to them. Obviously 55% of the Supreme Court's justices disagree with me.
I truly think this the most horrible decision that the Supreme Court has ever made. (Yes, worse than Dred Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade) It is, or will lead to the death of free elections and representative democracy in this nation.
I'll have a lot more on this at a later time, but it is late here and I don't need to get my blood too angered up an hour before bed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Right, but nowhere does it say that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is restricted only to individuals or to natural persons.
If you can find some reference that says differently then I'm all ears.
Now, like with the Second Amendment, people focus on the word "the people" as used in the Bill of Rights and other amendments to show that a particular amendment points to an individual right rather than to a collective one. However, I still submit that certain clauses in the Bill of Rights, even ones which specify "the people", also apply to groups of people as well as to individuals.
Which is why I brought up the Fourth Amendment up above. I mean, would you support going through a corporations private papers and things without a warrant?
What about the Fifth Amendment? Does the restriction against taking private property for public use without just compensation apply only to individuals? Can corporations even own property if they are not individuals?
It could be stated quite reasonably that the amendments apply to the individuals involved and not the corporations.
So, the first, fourth, and fifth amendments would apply to the individual CEO, CFO, COO, or the individuals on the Board of Directors.
To be clear, I have no objection to the executives of any corporation spending their own personal money on supporting a candidate. I do have a problem when those executives can take unlimited company profits and spend them willy-nilly on thousands of advertising spots to ensure that their candidate of choice is elected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is.
-- Benjamin Franklin
US citizens who own stock in corporations and who are registered and eligible to vote, should exercise that right.
Foreign citizens who own corporations in the US do not have that right -- US citizens who own stock in those coporations do.
I heard McConnell on Meet the Press yesterday saying that now GE & NBC could say what that want when.. gotta watch out for them. I guess Faux news and Murdoch are a kettle of fish because he didn't mention them at all.
Foreign citizens who own corporations in the US do not have that right -- US citizens who own stock in those coporations do.
Good point, so now foreign corporations and individuals can officially influence a US election. Am I wrong on this?
Influence how? By advertising?
I just really don't have a problem with this.
This also applies to unions as well. They are not 'persons' much like corporations but rely on a 'board' to make decisions in terms of support.
I was never a fan of McCain Feingold.
How long will the Unions survive in a system where Corporations that don't like the "interference" caused by Unions could purchase the Senate & House?
After this ruling, it wouldn't take much to make all Unions disappear.
Say, Wal-Mart, Boeing, or Ford decides to do away with unions. Those Corporations could spend untold billions of their profits on advertising and essentially purchase enough votes in Congress to get agreeable legislation. Then, the Corporations could order those elected officials that they "supported" to outlaw unions. If those elected officials failed to vote in the "correct" way then the Corporations could ensure that they were voted out of office.
None of that even covers what happens when Toyota, or Citgo decide to spend billions to get involved in our electoral process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is.
-- Benjamin Franklin
considering the millions that unions spent this past election cycle to get union friendlies elected and reelected - is this a real concern?
Well, at least Unions represent the American workers whereas some of these corporations(that are headquartered outside America) have board members from other countries.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
what does that have to do with anything?
Are you serious????? What does that have to do with anything????
I don't want people who are NOT AMERICAN having says or putting money into our ELECTIONS!! That's what that has to do with it!!!
When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
Xenophobic, much?
You know this exactly why I haven't been around much. No I have no fear of foreigners, but I don't think they should be involved in our elections. Call me what you like, I don't care. Obviously, others don't care who has a say in our elections. It should be up to the people. I thought you all were for individualism?? How is a Corporation an individual??
When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
That's a huge leap to say b/c a company may have international people on corporate boards that folks from other countries will be 'having a say' in our elections.
No it's not.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
okay
Thank You Peterdang, you have said better than I did.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
How can you NOT have a problem with that?? They can put tons more money than any average citizen, thereby manipulating elections with propaganda. As if we don't already have enough of that going on, this is only going to open the floodgates of more special interest money going into our elections.
If you don't like it you can always change the Constitution.
But the First Amendment says what it says and it means what it means, in context and historically. It is specifically meant to protect political and religious speech.
I mean, unlike some rulings by the court, the matter is pretty plain for all to see right there in the language of the First Amendment. It doesn't have to be inferred.
And in these days of social media proliferation, with the Internet and netroots and everything, I still think that your fears of sheep being led to the slaughter by misleading propaganda are unfounded.
Or at least, not any worse than they already are.
Sure, but then how will the government knows what the citizens want if we can't lobby it for change?
BTW, lobbying is protected by the First Amendment too.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
Kelly, I agree with you 100%, put out votes for the citizens on the issues.
Two things:
One, corporations are not individuals (individual American citizens, that is) and I never claimed that they were. Read what I said up above about why they still have rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights even though they are not individuals.
Two, no one is proposing that foreigners have a say in our elections. Just that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged -- especially with regards to political topics. And yes, that includes non-citizens, non-citizen corporations, foreign corporations, foreign governments, etc.
They are free to take out newspaper, TV, and radio ads. They are free to print and distribute pamphlets. They are free to create web pages and web ads. They are free to produce books and movies with a particular political bent short of actually advocating or inciting violence, which is not something that is actually protected by the First Amendment.
I just don't think that it will be the end of the world as we know it, as so many do. Although I'll freely admit that I am very much a free speech and press partisan. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
And yes, I am very much in favor of individualism.
Does anybody even really watch commercials anymore? I DVR most things and skip through the commercials. Maybe there is scientific evidence that says even if I see an anti-reform commercial in fast motion it stays in my brain and forces me to think health care reform will kill grandma?? This decision is horrific, no doubt about it. But I'm not so sure these groups will get their money's worth as the age of television and radio enter such a sharp change in the world of advancing technology. Maybe they can do the pop up's on various websites but that tends to annoy people and turn them off to your message (again, just speaking for myself, maybe scienctific evidence disputes that.) Anyway, I think the answer will have to be Congress taking action to curb the influence of lobbyists (on both the left and right.) Fat chance? Even McCain is running away from campaign finance reform as he faces a primary opponent in his election (suddenly, he is putting his hands up: "oh, well, nothing we can do"...what happened to his passion?)
But when I look at the health care fight, I can't help but acknowledge the influence of marketing a message. And the more money=the more people will hear your message, even if it's full of lies. It's truly disturbing that health care reform is on life support due to the billions spent by insurance lobbyists. They simply had more money than the other side.
There seem to be some common sense ways to counter this awful decsion and that may be all we've got. Sen. Schumer and other Dem's have been starting to work already (link from CBS News) proposing things like forcing companies to say "I'm ____ and I approve this message" at the end of an ad so we at least know who is behind the lobby effort.
This was a clear example of an "activist judge" decision the right was warning us about Obama recruiting. Are any of those 5 misguided judges thinking of retiring any time soon? We can only hope!
I agree that it was "activist" by expanding the case far beyond its original scope. That's really the only problem I have with it. I've downloaded the pdf of the court's opinion but it's long and I haven't read it in its entirety. I don't know if I want to wade through that much legalese.
They should have limited the ruling, IMO, to just the portions of campaign finance law directly relating to the movie in question, which still would have been a win for free speech.
__________________________
Full Episodes
__________________________
It appears that there are protections in regards to concerns about foriegn powers having a strong control in our political machinations via the recent SCOTUS decision.
From Politifact.com:
"Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication.""
and
"Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to said Obama was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. The experts said Obama was right that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred if he meant to suggest that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more."
Nothing, but that also holds true for individuals.
And for the record, I disagree with the ruling, whether the issue is domestic or international corporations.
That's a good question. What is the limit for corporations? I haven't seen any amount limit for corporations. But I would bet that if corporations have the rights of individuals, it could be argued that they have the limits of individuals, ie: $2300.
Doubt it will happen though.
Well I must admit I am confused. If individuals are limited in their donations (ie have their freedom of speech impinged upon) Why would corporations be given such a larger limit. It follows no logic.
If I am, as an entity limited to for the sake of arguement 2,500, why is a corporation, as an entity not given the same limit?
I don't know beans about the details so would this be an incredibly ignorant concept?
Corporations and unions are prohibited from making direct contributions in Federal elections. Source: The FEC.
Corporations and unions can create Political Action Committees, but even their fundraising is limited to certain classes of individuals, and the amount each individual can give is limited.
I don't want to wade through the full legalese on the FEC website, but Wikipedia helps here:
Edit: Just had to look it up, too -- that bastion of protecting our freedoms whether we want them to or not, the ACLU, filed an amicus brief in this case, supporting Citizens United. Or at least the repeal of the part of the ruling which we are discussing.
Thanks for finding that, sixteentons, even though I believe that you still disagree with the court's overall opinion.
Note also that this ruling does not change the ban/restriction on donating directly to candidates and their campaigns. I'm not sure about donations to parties.
From Huff Post. Murray Hill Firm Plans Run for Congress. This video is awesome. For a topic so serious, I was cracking up. How clever! I guess we need a little humor with this decision...
Corporations are taking note of the impact that the Supreme Court decision to remove limits on corporate campaign spending will have on federal elections. One is even taking matters a step further -- with tongue firmly in cheek.
On its website, the progressive PR firm Murray Hill has announced its satirical plan to run for Congress, in what it calls the "First Test of 'Corporate Personhood' In Politics."
We have very serious decisions to make regarding corporate control of very important aspects of life... Energy, Natural Resources, Food Supply, Healthcare, Housing, Banking...
Go free market go!? Ouch! We are set up for a TOTAL dependency scenario... ushered in by a good run of corporate interests running the show via our government official's "private investments",. Strategic investments made by "public figures"....
investments in a Perpetual War Machine, Big Banks, Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Farming, Big Oil ...
Did I miss anything???
And in the last 10 years, every one of these sectors has gained a foothold in YOUR LIFE... reaching A CRITICAL level of influence in our every day lives...
I don't know how opening a floodgate of corporate interests onto the consciousness of the masses and their representatives will "manifest", but it felt a bit like Alito broke some "final seal", determining our fate. It's tiresome to hear it again, but Bush's SCOTUS appointment did this. He came into the SCOTUS under much criticism for his hard right positions, and he's among the loonie "minions" in my opinion.
Can't blame Obama for this one either! But you know the loonies will try...
If we could be proud of an informed citizenry, I'd feel a lot better about a lot of things...
There are many very important issues at stake on a global level right now, and at this junction, it is alarming that this decision welcomes insidious influences who have no human interests or the interest of freedom on their agenda into our democratic "process".
All I know is , NO one can sleepwalk through life anymore, Way too muchis at stake in the future.
The truth is out there, but you can't find it chained to one side of a shadowy cave.
We need ways to BECOME the process of government instead of sitting idly by. Get people engaged again...
Rational, truthful sources of information who are away from all these interests are now more vital than ever. NPR? PBS? BBC? I've been turning an ear to them for years already.
It's a grave mistake to think that the political environment is only a matter of the public's opinion...This is being exploited in a huge way these days...All emphasis is now put on the opinion, and it's a tactical use of the nature of truth against us. Our actual political environment is NOT "opinion". Opinions can be all over the spectrum... but the environment is now so far to the right as to suggest that public broadcasting really becomes rather "central" in my thinking.